Early 2010
brought encouraging signs for defenders of marriage and the family. The repeal
of homosexual “marriage” in Maine extended a telling winning streak: In every
state where voters have been asked to decide, they have preserved the
definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman (including
Arizona, where they narrowly rejected a ban on same-sex “marriage” in 2006 only
to easily pass one two years later). Meanwhile, New York’s Legislature failed
to approve homosexual “marriage,” and the efforts to smuggle it through the New
Jersey Legislature before defeated Gov. Jon Corzine left office died.

Of course, the picture is mixed,
too. Homosexual “marriage” became legal this year in New Hampshire and
Washington, D.C., where a local judge has blocked the citizenry from voting on
it. Other states, like Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut, have already used
judicial and legislative fiat to establish — make that impose — these “rights.”

Still, the popular effort to defend
marriage can rightly be called a success, which is why the time is right to
remember that no team wins only by playing defense. The time has come for
marriage advocates to go on the offense.

It’s very clear that, when allowed
to express their views, the American people have consistently voted to protect
marriage. That’s one reason, probably, why the D.C. City Council wants to
prevent voters in Washington from being able to vote on their legalization of
homosexual “marriage.” Homosexual “marriage” has been imposed on Americans
primarily by activist state courts and some state legislatures (usually acting
with a judicial gun pointed at their heads). They are abetted by certain elite
opinion makers who claim “it’s only a matter of time” before “heterosexual
discrimination” is eradicated.

So how do we go on the offense?

Voters in 31 states have legally
defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That’s almost two-thirds of
the states. And two-thirds of the states are just what’s needed to propose a
constitutional amendment.

There are two ways to amend the U.S.
Constitution. The method used to date requires Congress, by two-thirds vote in
each house, to propose an amendment to the states. Once proposed, three-fourths
of the states — 38 of 50 — must ratify it.

The likelihood of any pro-marriage
amendment passing the current 111th Congress is nil. There would not be enough
votes in either the Senate or the House to enact such an amendment; nor would
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or the Senate’s majority leader, Harry Reid, let the
Democratic majority, which would likely oppose such an amendment, go on record
in an election year on such a controversial issue.

Luckily, the Constitution allows the
people to pressure and ultimately bypass a recalcitrant Congress.

If two-thirds of the state
legislatures call for a constitutional convention for proposing amendments to
the Constitution, the amendments proposed would be submitted directly to the
state legislatures for their ratification without further congressional action.
Yes, 38 states would have to ratify any such amendment, but presumably it would
already have plenty of momentum if proposed by 34 states.

There would likely be enormous
resistance to such a proposal. There hasn’t been a constitutional convention
since 1787, when we wrote our present Constitution. Opponents would warn about
a “runaway” convention that would strip us of constitutional rights. They are
likely to claim that a proposed marriage amendment would represent the first
time “rights” were taken away. Washington, especially with its current
leadership, will vehemently oppose losing power over controlling the amending
process.

But the beautiful thing is that a
convention doesn’t necessarily have to work. If enough momentum were stirred up
so that it appeared that the states might call for such
an amendment and bypass Congress, two things would happen. First, the question
of protecting marriage would land front and center on the congressional agenda
— even if Pelosi and Reid don’t want it there. Every incumbent would have to
say where he stood: Would he allow the people, through the ratification
process, to protect marriage through constitutional amendment?

With that kind of momentum,
candidates running for Congress would have defense of marriage as a talking
point this year. It would also force the issue to the forefront in a Republican
Party where there are still powerful forces that want a “big tent
Republicanism” that is economically conservative but socially licentious.

Imagine the energy that would be
generated by forcing the discussion of marriage right onto the congressional
agenda in 2010, just as control of the Senate and House may be up for grabs.

President George W. Bush urged
Congress to pass such a constitutional amendment in 2004. The amendment went
nowhere, in part because many Democrats covertly supported homosexual
“marriage,” in part because Republicans wanted to avoid controversy, and in
part because both sides found it convenient to use the excuse of being
“moderate” and claiming that there was no reason to “federalize” the question.
Why change the Constitution, they asked, when a simple law might be enough? The
result was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (Doma).

The past six years have shown just
how far the legal culture has deteriorated. Absent a federal constitutional
prohibition, state courts have freely invented a right to homosexual “marriage”
in their state constitutions. Doma itself is insufficient, for two reasons.
One, what one Congress enacts, another can repeal. And two, because a
constitutional amendment creates an ethos — a mindset, a legal culture — that
makes its violation far more difficult.

The pro-life struggle should be
illustrative. Absent a human-life amendment, pro-lifers have spent 37 years
fighting incremental battles about important but secondary issues — banning
partial-birth abortions, limiting taxpayer funding of abortion or protecting
the rights of parents vis-à-vis their minor daughters. We have won many small
victories, but the corrupting effects of Roe v. Wade have so
metastasized in the American legal system that even these incremental victories
remain tenuous and under constant assault.

What we need is a clear resolution
of the protection of marriage on the level of legal principle. The U.S.
Constitution should say that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Period.
Such a resolution would not necessarily exclude civil unions and other
accommodations, but it would prevent legislatures, courts and Congress from
making such ersatz unions the legal equivalents of marriage, with all the
rights and privileges of marriage.

It would also undo the mischief
already wrought in some states, like Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut,
since the supremacy of federal law would make contrary state policies
unconstitutional.

The moment has arrived to start
protecting marriage effectively in our legal culture — not by piecemeal
victories at the ballot box in Maine or the votes in the New York Senate, but
at the level of constitutional principle.

Using the call for a constitutional
convention to build and capitalize on that momentum — both during this
congressional election year and in preparation for the next presidential
election — only seems sensible.

I think this article misses a very important point. By arguing about what government is doing or not doing to marriage, we fail to perceive that it is not the business of the government to regulate marriage. The Church is all that was required until King Henry of England. I do not trust this evil government (that includes both parties) to “do the right thing” with marriage. Maybe when Christians start respecting marriage by staying married will there be a renewal of this essential building block of society.

Posted by Brian on Saturday, Feb, 27, 2010 2:52 PM (EST):

Don’t assume that a state’s legislature is necessarily in line with its people. Look at Maine as a perfect example. But for a people’s veto, Maine would have same-sex “marriage.” What drives the people is not what drives the politicians. To expect these same politions who brought us same-sex “marriage” to now fight for constitutional ammendment is wishful thinking.

Posted by Jennifer on Thursday, Feb, 25, 2010 4:11 PM (EST):

I’m not very well versed, so please bear with me if I use the wrong terminology, but I know currently there are states looking to take back their rights. So, what about the states that are passing (resolutions/ laws?) of (succession?) and trying to over throw the feds commerce clause control because they feel the feds have already started to ignore the constitution when it comes to the gun policies and such? Wouldn’t something like this cause those states, which legislatively enabled homosexual unions to be called marriage, to take similar actions and leave us with several sovereign states and no standard between those states? In other words, our federal government would loose a lot of authority. Would this, could this happen? And would it be good or bad for this to happen? I personally do not know. Maybe this would be good, but very hard to go through. I’d love to hear an opinion from someone who knows more about this.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.